General Motors and Racial Discrimination: The 1983 EEOC Settlement
This paper examines the landmark 1973–1983 civil rights case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against General Motors, the world's largest automaker at the time. It details the $42 million settlement — the largest civil rights reparations payment in U.S. history up to that point — including its monetary provisions for scholarships, training programs, and minority business grants. The paper profiles key stakeholders such as Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and the NAACP, and analyzes GM's corporate culture of racial tension. It concludes with a discussion of ongoing discrimination allegations at GM facilities and broader questions about the future direction of civil rights legislation and affirmative action policy.
- Introduction: Civil Rights and Corporate America: EEOC targets corporations to advance civil rights
- The EEOC–GM Settlement and Its Terms: Breakdown of GM's $42 million discrimination settlement
- Civil Rights Legislation and the Role of the NAACP: Marshall and NAACP use litigation to force change
- Clarence Thomas and the EEOC: Thomas modernizes EEOC and signs GM agreement
- General Motors: Corporate Culture and Ongoing Discrimination: Post-settlement lawsuits reveal persistent racial hostility
- The Future of Civil Rights Legislation: Debate over affirmative action and reverse discrimination
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in concrete detail — the itemized breakdown of the $42 million settlement gives readers a clear, evidence-based picture of the agreement's scope and ambition.
- It moves logically from historical context (Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP) to a specific legal event (the 1983 settlement) to ongoing consequences (post-settlement lawsuits), giving the narrative a strong causal arc.
- The inclusion of direct quotations from EEOC employees and a UAW spokesperson adds credibility and multiple perspectives to what could otherwise be a one-sided account.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of stakeholder analysis — identifying not just the parties to a legal settlement but their motivations, institutional roles, and historical significance. By profiling Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, GM management, and the EEOC, the paper shows how complex civil rights outcomes depend on the actions of multiple actors across time.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical background on civil rights and the EEOC's enforcement strategy, then presents the specific facts of the GM settlement and its financial terms. A middle section traces the legal and organizational precedents set by Marshall and Thomas. The paper then returns to GM's corporate culture to show that the settlement did not fully resolve discrimination within the company. It closes with a critical evaluation of affirmative action policy and its contemporary relevance, raising the risk of reverse discrimination.
Introduction: Civil Rights and Corporate America
The civil rights movement in the United States began slowly. Changing centuries of discriminatory practices across an entire country was not a task without opposition, or without ignorance on the part of the average citizen. However, when that ignorance was institutionalized within businesses, the wheels of justice needed a significant push in order to begin affording Black Americans access to the same opportunities that white Americans enjoyed. Toward this end, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actively sought out target cases that would have the largest impact on moving the civil rights agenda forward.
In 1973, a suit was filed against the world's largest automaker, General Motors. The EEOC alleged that the corporation actively discriminated against Black, Hispanic, and women workers. At the time of the suit's filing, only 6.4% of the company's journeymen (skilled labor) positions were filled by minority workers. Under the terms of the eventual agreement, the company would seek to raise that figure to 10%. Regarding women, they made up 20% of the hourly workforce. Under the agreement, new hiring programs would target a quota of 28% women.
This settlement was reached outside of a protracted legal battle in the courts. In light of the cultural direction of the decade and the influence the EEOC was having in securing a more balanced workplace for minorities, General Motors chose to settle the suit. By following a proactive policy rather than an adversarial one, both the company and the EEOC were able to complete negotiations while remaining in a positive light in the court of public opinion.
References
Agence France Presse. Minority workers sue General Motors for 7.4 billion dollars. 03/21/2002.
Brunner, Borgna. Civil Rights. 2003. Info Please.com. 2 Dec 2003.
Civil Rights: an overview. Legal Information Institute. 2003. Cornell University. 2 Dec. 2003.
Clarence Thomas at the EEOC. Dataline. September 1991. Volume I, No. 3. 2 Dec. 2003.
Enforcement Efforts in the 1980s. 2002. The EEOC. 2 Dec 2003.
Mazur, Morgan, Meyers & Kittel. General Motors Charged In Lawsuit With Aiding Gannett Newspaper To Discriminate Against Its Reporter And Interference With Gannett Reporter's Employment. PR Newswire. 07/31/2002.
Pear, Robert. G.M. Agrees to Pay $42 Million to End Case on Job Bias. New York Times, 19 Oct. 1983, p. A1.
Tushnet, M.V. Making Civil Rights Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1936–1961. London: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.